Literature DB >> 29130539

Sources of systematic error in proton density fat fraction (PDFF) quantification in the liver evaluated from magnitude images with different numbers of echoes.

Mark Bydder1, Gavin Hamilton2, Ludovic de Rochefort1, Ajinkya Desai2, Elhamy R Heba2, Rohit Loomba3,4, Jeffrey B Schwimmer5,6, Nikolaus M Szeverenyi2, Claude B Sirlin2.   

Abstract

The purpose of this work was to investigate sources of bias in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) liver fat quantification that lead to a dependence of the proton density fat fraction (PDFF) on the number of echoes. This was a retrospective analysis of liver MRI data from 463 subjects. The magnitude signal variation with TE from spoiled gradient echo images was curve fitted to estimate the PDFF using a model that included monoexponential R2 * decay and a multi-peak fat spectrum. Additional corrections for non-exponential decay (Gaussian), bi-exponential decay, degree of fat saturation, water frequency shift and noise bias were introduced. The fitting error was minimized with respect to 463 × 3 = 1389 subject-specific parameters and seven additional parameters associated with these corrections. The effect on PDFF was analyzed, notably the dependence on the number of echoes. The effects on R2 * were also analyzed. The results showed that the inclusion of bias corrections resulted in an increase in the quality of fit (r2 ) in 427 of 463 subjects (i.e. 92.2%) and a reduction in the total fitting error (residual norm) of 43.6%. This was largely a result of the Gaussian decay (57.8% of the reduction), fat spectrum (31.0%) and biexponential decay (8.8%) terms. The inclusion of corrections was also accompanied by a decrease in the dependence of PDFF on the number of echoes. Similar analysis of R2 * showed a decrease in the dependence on the number of echoes. Comparison of PDFF with spectroscopy indicated excellent agreement before and after correction, but the latter exhibited lower bias on a Bland-Altman plot (1.35% versus 0.41%). In conclusion, correction for known and expected biases in PDFF quantification in liver reduces the fitting error, decreases the dependence on the number of echoes and increases the accuracy.
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NAFLD; PDFF; bias; fat quantification; liver

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29130539      PMCID: PMC5761676          DOI: 10.1002/nbm.3843

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NMR Biomed        ISSN: 0952-3480            Impact factor:   4.044


  29 in total

1.  Relaxation effects in the quantification of fat using gradient echo imaging.

Authors:  Mark Bydder; Takeshi Yokoo; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Alyssa D Chavez; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Joel E Lavine; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 2.546

2.  Quantitative MR susceptibility mapping using piece-wise constant regularized inversion of the magnetic field.

Authors:  Ludovic de Rochefort; Ryan Brown; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Magnetic susceptibility measurement of insoluble solids by NMR: magnetic susceptibility of bone.

Authors:  J A Hopkins; F W Wehrli
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Correction of phase errors in quantitative water-fat imaging using a monopolar time-interleaved multi-echo gradient echo sequence.

Authors:  Stefan Ruschke; Holger Eggers; Hendrik Kooijman; Maximilian N Diefenbach; Thomas Baum; Axel Haase; Ernst J Rummeny; Houchun H Hu; Dimitrios C Karampinos
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 4.668

5.  Simple proton spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  W T Dixon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Addressing phase errors in fat-water imaging using a mixed magnitude/complex fitting method.

Authors:  D Hernando; C D G Hines; H Yu; S B Reeder
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 4.668

7.  Cross-sectional correlation between hepatic R2* and proton density fat fraction (PDFF) in children with hepatic steatosis.

Authors:  Adrija Mamidipalli; Gavin Hamilton; Paul Manning; Cheng William Hong; Charlie C Park; Tanya Wolfson; Jonathan Hooker; Elhamy Heba; Alexandra Schlein; Anthony Gamst; Janis Durelle; Melissa Paiz; Michael S Middleton; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Long-TE 1H MRS suggests that liver fat is more saturated than subcutaneous and visceral fat.

Authors:  Jesper Lundbom; Antti Hakkarainen; Sanni Söderlund; Jukka Westerbacka; Nina Lundbom; Marja-Riitta Taskinen
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2010-09-06       Impact factor: 4.044

9.  Effects of intravenous gadolinium administration and flip angle on the assessment of liver fat signal fraction with opposed-phase and in-phase imaging.

Authors:  Takeshi Yokoo; Julie M Collins; Robert F Hanna; Mark Bydder; Michael S Middleton; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Effect of echo-sampling strategy on the accuracy of out-of-phase and in-phase multiecho gradient-echo MRI hepatic fat fraction estimation.

Authors:  Yakir S Levin; Takeshi Yokoo; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony C Gamst; Julie Collins; Emil A Achmad; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 4.813

View more
  6 in total

1.  The relationship between liver triglyceride composition and proton density fat fraction as assessed by 1 H MRS.

Authors:  Gavin Hamilton; Alex N Schlein; Tanya Wolfson; Guilherme M Cunha; Kathryn J Fowler; Michael S Middleton; Rohit Loomba; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 4.044

2.  Measurement of liver iron by magnetic resonance imaging in the UK Biobank population.

Authors:  Andy McKay; Henry R Wilman; Andrea Dennis; Matt Kelly; Michael L Gyngell; Stefan Neubauer; Jimmy D Bell; Rajarshi Banerjee; E Louise Thomas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Mapping tissue water T1 in the liver using the MOLLI T1 method in the presence of fat, iron and B0 inhomogeneity.

Authors:  Ferenc E Mozes; Elizabeth M Tunnicliffe; Ahmad Moolla; Thomas Marjot; Christina K Levick; Michael Pavlides; Matthew D Robson
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.044

4.  Peri-tumoural spatial distribution of lipid composition and tubule formation in breast cancer.

Authors:  Kwok-Shing Chan; Sai Man Cheung; Nicholas Senn; Ehab Husain; Yazan Masannat; Steven Heys; Jiabao He
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Differentiating supraclavicular from gluteal adipose tissue based on simultaneous PDFF and T2 * mapping using a 20-echo gradient-echo acquisition.

Authors:  Daniela Franz; Maximilian N Diefenbach; Franziska Treibel; Dominik Weidlich; Jan Syväri; Stefan Ruschke; Mingming Wu; Christina Holzapfel; Theresa Drabsch; Thomas Baum; Holger Eggers; Ernst J Rummeny; Hans Hauner; Dimitrios C Karampinos
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 6.  Multiparametric MR mapping in clinical decision-making for diffuse liver disease.

Authors:  Helena B Thomaides-Brears; Rita Lepe; Rajarshi Banerjee; Carlos Duncker
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-08-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.